Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

I had dinner last night with a high school buddy of mine who is also a musician (vocal) and we were discussing my recent pieces and planned future pieces, etc. I mentioned one of the pieces I finished recently was Mozart's 12 variations K265 (and also plan to work on Mozart's K511 Rondo in the near future which is in addition to my new love for Scarlatti). In any case, my buddy asked if these pieces are considered major pieces for the piano (he asked it in a different way but I knew what he meant). I thought about it and the truth is, I really don't know.

What actually constitutes a major work for solo piano? Is Mozart's K511 or K265 considered major works? Is it the length of the piece? The stucture (sonata form versus a theme and variations or rondo)? Are there any common elements for definng a major work for the piano? I don't think anyone would argue that most of the Beethoven sonatas, for example, are major works and yet I don't think Mozart's K265 or K511 would be considered major works, but I just don't know if this is the case or why.

It's all in eye of the beholder. There are some people who would say that Haydn's Variations in F minor and maybe Mendelssohn's Variations serieuses are both major pieces, because they are serious, whereas Mozart's Variations on Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star (and similarly, Dohnanyi's for piano and orchestra) aren't because....the theme is a nursery tune? (OK, Dohnanyi's variations are also quite witty).

If length is the issue, does that mean that Scriabin's Sonata No.4 (lasting barely 10 minutes) isn't a major work? Or Berg's? Or Beethoven's Op.49 Sonatas/Sonatinas? But most pianists would say that Chopin's Ballades are major works. But a Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody lasting longer? But most would agree that Chopin's Minute Waltz isn't a major work.

As for the form or structure, I don't think anyone would presume that Bach's Goldberg or Beethoven's Diabelli aren't major works. And let's not forget that Beethoven's most profound Sonata, Op.111, has as its finale a theme and variations. And I believe that Mozart's K511 Rondo is considered a major work by most too - because of its profundity(?)

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."

I think the term is way too nebulous to have a definition of the sort that could be used to decide whether any given piece was "major". Sure, I think there is general agreement that many big and important pieces of the core repertoire (another nebulous term) fit the description, but I don't think that means there's some kind of working definition involved. Basically, if enough people with some musical expertise think a piece is major, then it is. It is sort of like "great" in that way.

There are many pieces that might have some people advocating "major" and others disagreeing with that assessment. I was ready to give an example, but realized that doing that was inviting trouble.

You need to take into account:* length* technical difficulty* musicality required* The fame of the piece

amongst other things

First I thought that the fame of the piece is not relevant, but then I reconsidered. Also, I might consider the amount of movements a factor (if a piece consists of multiple short movements (that are not linked together), the majority of the piece is decreased).

In addition to the above, what is a work? Do the Chopin preludes count as a single work (that could be considered major) or are they a set of 24 miniatures?

#2013809 - 01/13/1307:33 AMRe: What constitutes a major work for solo piano?
[Re: Works1]

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 20371
Loc: New York City

Each person will have a slightly different definition. For me the length, technical difficulty, and musical difficulty would be the main considerations. Obviously there are some pieces that are near the borderline between major/not major works for whatever definition one is using. So, even for each individual, deciding to call a piece a major work is not always clear. But this is not really important.

I don't think the fame of the piece or number of movements are at all relevant. Why would they be(for those that think they are)?

A very interesting question. I would say just one thing, that a work is major above all by it's intent, not by it's reception. There is nothing naive about it. An artist knows that he has something of an exceptional importance to accomplish, and the work that goes into its realization is in correspondance enormous. Chopin Op10, mentioned earlier, is an archtypical example. "Chapeaux bas, gentlemen, we're in the prescence of a genious."

Chopin's third scherzo only lasts 7 minutes on average. His heroic polonaise even less.. yet these are both considered 'large' works by Chopin. I don't really think 'large-scale' has a black and white definition. I think you just know it when you see (hear) it.

Perhaps debatable, but I think most people would consider Schubert's impromptus to be "major" works while Chopin's are mostly considered to be "lesser" works. Is it relative to the composer, or relative to the "canon" (which is obviously a whole nother kettle of fish)?

I think the term is way too nebulous to have a definition of the sort that could be used to decide whether any given piece was "major".

I agree that the term is quite nebulous, but I think that a problem arises by dismissing the term in that some competitions/examinations require an optional (i.e. outside the list of required pieces) "major" work by a composer.

Perhaps debatable, but I think most people would consider Schubert's impromptus to be "major" works while Chopin's are mostly considered to be "lesser" works. Is it relative to the composer, or relative to the "canon" (which is obviously a whole nother kettle of fish)?

I actually got really confused when I read this, then I realized you were comparing with Chopin impromptus (I don't consider neither Schubert nor Chopin's impromptus major). I guess that just shows that everyone has their own idea of what a major work is, but I think there is a list that almost everyone would accept as a major work or at least not be willing to flat out deny it "major work" status.

For me it's a bit fuzzy, the most important criteria is length since I feel like most pieces under 10 minutes are "not serious enough" (I don't even really know what this means in my head, it's just one of those things where I know it when I see it). Strangely, Chopin Ballades get a clear "pass" but I'm a little hesitant to give the Scherzos the same "respect". As another example, Mazeppa approaches the length of Scriabin 9 (which I consider "major") and is very technically challenging, but somehow I don't find it "serious enough". It's in an awkward zone of being too long to be a miniature that you play to wow people, but not long and serious enough to be a "major work". Still, I'd put it in a program anyday

After writing that chunk of text above and listening to my recording of Chopin's 1st Scherzo, I'm starting to think that maybe since "major" is a term that carries a bit of weight, the pieces that we label "major" are the ones we respect for their content and difficulty (I don't really like the Scherzos since I think they're a bit repetitive, so that probably makes me inclined to not bestow upon them the label of "major work").

I think the term is way too nebulous to have a definition of the sort that could be used to decide whether any given piece was "major".

I agree that the term is quite nebulous, but I think that a problem arises by dismissing the term in that some competitions/examinations require an optional (i.e. outside the list of required pieces) "major" work by a composer.

Who decides?

Well, whoever is the repertoire referee decides. If I were a person thinking about entering a competition or doing an exam, and there was any question in my mind about whether a piece I was thinking of doing passed the "major" test, I'd simply contact the organization and ask. I think in many cases, there's not much question.

I've noticed that some competitions avoid that sort of question by being very specific - they list which Mozart and Beethoven sonatas they won't accept, for example.

I actually got really confused when I read this, then I realized you were comparing with Chopin impromptus (I don't consider neither Schubert nor Chopin's impromptus major). I guess that just shows that everyone has their own idea of what a major work is, but I think there is a list that almost everyone would accept as a major work or at least not be willing to flat out deny it "major work" status.

Well, perhaps I equate "major" with "masterwork", as opposed to some sort of sort sort of technical challenge. Op 90 and Op 142 are some of the finest works of the early romantic canon, and while technically they're not on par with late Romantic sonatas, there's a reason they were so beloved and performed by Horowitz, Brendel, Perahia.

Is the Prokofiev tocatta op. 11 a major work? In terms of difficulty I think that it is, and it's one of the most difficult things I've performed, but it's a 'mere' 4 minutes long if played right and I can't really take it as a 'too much of a major work'. Same goes for any Ligeti etude whic generally speaking are a nightmare to be performed... brrr...

#2014723 - 01/15/1302:09 AMRe: What constitutes a major work for solo piano?
[Re: Works1]

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 20371
Loc: New York City

I think the thread so far has establised there is little agreement about what constitutes a major work unless one talks about pieces that are clearly in the major work category or clearly not in tat category. There are many pieces in the middle that no one is going to agree on.

OTOH I think it's also been established that the question is not really important. The only time one has to know "for sure" if a piece is a major work is when some competition or audition has a requirement that reads something like "a major work from the Classical era". But in this case the problem is easily solved by calling those in charge of the competition and asking or by choosing one of the pieces not in the vague middle area where some might disagree about whehther it's major.

Forgive me pianoloverus for trying to answer the OP’s specific question about what constitutes a major work ... he put it like this ...

“I don't think anyone would argue that most of the Beethoven sonatas, for example, are major works and yet I don't think Mozart's K265 or K511 would be considered major works, but I just don't know if this is the case or why.

Any thoughts on this?”

Mozart’s K.265 is clearly NOT a major work because of it’s simplistic single-note structure.

OTOH I think it's also been established that the question is not really important.

I don't think that that has been established at all. For my part, I think that it is a really important question. A very really important question.

But I think that we can say that the thread has established that there is not agreement about whether the question as to what constitutes a major work (for solo piano or otherwise) is really important.

Thank you for the replies. While it is not particularly important to me whether a piece I play is considered a "major" work, I certainly am curious. Surely there must be some common ground/criteria for detemining whether a particular work for solo piano is considered to be "major". If piano competitions are using the term without providing specific guidlelines, there must an assumption as to what those guidelies or determinig factors are.

If we know, for example, that a single Chopin etude is not a major work or that a more lengthy piece like Mozart's K.265 or K.511 is not a major work but we know that Beethoven's Op.53 is a major work, we are already using some preconceived factors which I would guess are primarly the length and complexity of the piece. While the Mozart K265 is perhaps lengthy enough, it is not particularly complex. While a chopin etude may be complex enough, it is not particulary lengthy.

I'd just like to point out: a single Chopin étude is not only not a major work, it is not a work.

I wish to add that, the Chopin études are not, in my opinion, complex. Still, and always in my opinion of course, the Chopin études are a major work. If there is any sense at all in the term, which I believe there is indeed, the Chopin études are a major work.

I thought the Rondo in A minor (K511) is usually considered one of Mozart's finest piano works. Wouldn't that usually qualify as a major work? It's pretty musically complex, and often played in programmes and competitions.

#2015384 - 01/16/1310:14 AMRe: What constitutes a major work for solo piano?
[Re: Works1]

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 20371
Loc: New York City

Originally Posted By: Works1

Thank you for the replies. While it is not particularly important to me whether a piece I play is considered a "major" work, I certainly am curious. Surely there must be some common ground/criteria for determining whether a particular work for solo piano is considered to be "major". If piano competitions are using the term without providing specific guidelines, there must an assumption as to what those guidelines or determining factors are.

I think one can see from the replies in this thread there are not hard and fast rules about what is a "major work" so many pieces fall into some nebulous grey area in the middle where there will not be unanimous agreement.

So there is not common ground/criteria that can be used for all pieces. But there are many pieces at each end of the spectrum from the most minor to the most major work that most everyone would agree on. For example, I doubt anyone would say Grieg's Arietta is a major work or that Beethoven's Op.111 is not a major work. I think most would use some combination of length and technical/musical difficulty in their deciding.

OTOH the only situation mentioned so far where knowing if something is a major work is really important is when one is playing in a competition or audition and the requirement says something like "A major work from the Classical period". If one has any doubts about a piece one is thinking of playing then you can just contact the people in charge and they will tell you if your piece qualifies.

Otherwise I think the entire discussion is just a question of semantics, and there is no hard and fast rule any more than there is a rule for defining a "masterpiece".

#2015389 - 01/16/1310:24 AMRe: What constitutes a major work for solo piano?
[Re: landorrano]

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 20371
Loc: New York City

Originally Posted By: landorrano

Originally Posted By: pianoloverus

Why do you think it's important?

Good question. When you recognize that a work is major, you take measure of what has gone into creating it ... and of what it will take you to understand it.

Whether a work is "major" or not is not always black and white. It can depend on one's personal definition.

I think one should just, when learning any piece, do whatever is needed to play it the best one can. If a piece is more difficult or more "major" then it's obvious one will have to do more work to learn it, but I don't think one has to know exactly how "major" a piece is. In fact, there is no general agreement on this question.

The entire discussion really just semantics. Pne might as well try and define what a "beautiful" piece is.